Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[Guest Daniel]

Today we are going through a very warm period with mild winters warms summers and year on year of above average tempetures. This has lead many to belive that this is caused by man made Glabal warming and that the Future in the U.K will be warm. But a report in iceagenow suggest that that the warming is mosterly due to the sun. When the sun goes through an attive phase we are warmer and when it is quite we are cooler. In the last little iceage the sun was quiter and the warm ocean cureents were slower. the result was a period of cold. From the 16th to the 19th centures there were many bitting east or north wind winters which froze the rivers and lakes and caused deep snow to lye on the ground for many weeks in winter in central England. sometimes in the coldest of these winters the snows would lye up to a 100 days and trees died of frost. now during this time not only the gulf stream was weaker but the sun was also far quiter and this had a major effect on the climate. In this time average winter temps were about 2 degrees colder than today and the mild westerly winds were far weaker. Now the point of this message is that the sun is expected to go into another quite phase at sometime in the 2030s. If that happens and combine that with weaker warm ocean currents then we could well have another cold spell that is even colder than the last little ice age. In the 2030s the winters in the U.K could well be snowbound with deep snow and heavy drifting lasting for weeks at a time. our rivers will once again freeze. Average daily temps in this colder winters in Central England would be between 0 and 2 Celsius by day and night times would be well below freezing sometimes falling below -10. This is the average climate some winters would be far colder others less cold. but even the less cold ones not not be as warm as today. Summers two will be cooler and wetter but again hot spells will still occure. now this message is not so much about the gulf stream as we know all about that but about the sun. The sun is the main sourse of heat and small changes in that brings warm and cold spells. So when the sun goes quite we would cool and the great frosts and snows will return. now the 2030s may seem a long way but the first of these bitter wintrer may be far nearer and could occure before the end of this decade. They had happened many times in the past sometimes lasting over 3 months.

[Methuselah]

What, this again!

[weatherbitez]

,hmmmmmmmm? Something to ponder over!

[Guest Daniel]

What, this again!

No not quite. this message is not about the gulf stream but about changes in the sun and how that can effect us. you will find this in iceage now and an very intertsting point about the last little ice age in the 17th and 18th centurtes was the sun had almost no sun spots and was very quite. this could well have been the main cause of the bitter cold in winter. Now the little age age started in the 1300 but was at its height in the 17th and 18 th centures. Not only that before there was a very warm period called the medeival warm spell in which our climate was as warm if not warmer than today and that occured long before man made pollution so somthing to think about.

[SNOW-MAN2006]

What, this again!

It may be another related global warming topic but i suspect daniel may have a point there.

And if we do get colder i think then i would die as last winter was cold enough for me (just more snow is what i need )

I think though the point is the pete is that when the sun is very much active there is a higher intensity/stength of the sun's rays and these rays get trapped in the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect) and they are very difficult to escpae making it warmer but conincidently if the activity where to decrease then there would be a lower intensity of rays giving the trapped rays more time to escape eventually making us cooler.

SNOW-MAN2006

[Scribbler]

But a report in iceagenow suggest that that the warming is mosterly due to the sun.

Under "The Rains Came....And Came", Iceagenow says............

"Mother Earth is belching up red hot magma through the ocean floor all across the globe.

It may come as a surprise to you, but two thirds of all volcanic activity takes place under the world's seas, and currently that activity is heating the oceans to the point where they are sending huge amounts of moisture up into the atmosphere where it comes down as heavy rain in the spring, summer and fall, and snow in the winter.

As Bob Felix points out in his iceagenow.com website, it's not global warming, but ocean warming.

The non-existent global warming isn't heating the oceans as poor demented Al Gore would have us believe, but ocean heating that's warming the globe."

[Methuselah]

Under "The Rains Came....And Came", Iceagenow says............

"Mother Earth is belching up red hot magma through the ocean floor all across the globe.

It may come as a surprise to you, but two thirds of all volcanic activity takes place under the world's seas, and currently that activity is heating the oceans to the point where they are sending huge amounts of moisture up into the atmosphere where it comes down as heavy rain in the spring, summer and fall, and snow in the winter.

As Bob Felix points out in his iceagenow.com website, it's not global warming, but ocean warming.

The non-existent global warming isn't heating the oceans as poor demented Al Gore would have us believe, but ocean heating that's warming the globe."

If only the stooges at iceagenow understood geology and plate tectonics??? There simply hasn't been any sufficiently-discernable increase in undersea vulcanism on the required scale...iceagenow notwithstanding, where are these vast plumes of hot air coming from? The boiling oceans? There's as much evidence in favour of alien deathrays or Tesla Coils being responsible!

Never mind, peeps - as GW is not allowed be in-any-way down to anthropogenic ghgs, let's all make-up as many extraodinary alternative hypotheses as we can. Science is only a social cconstruct anyway, so it's all relative really? Must keep an open mind, blah blah blah???

That said: I am quite aware of natural cycles...

[Scribbler]

The boiling oceans? There's as much evidence in favour of alien deathrays or Tesla Coils being responsible!

Never mind, peeps,........ let's all make-up as many extraodinary alternative hypotheses as we can. .......... Must keep an open mind, blah blah blah???

Hi Pete

Who writes iceagenow - chap called F. Gordon by any chance!

Mind you, these extraordinary alternative hypotheses do help sell books!

Must start thinking of one.

PS Nice bit of avatar (eye candy) you've got there today!

[Red Raven]

without getting into a huge debate but putting the record straight. Is it not the case the sun has been warming all of its life even through the colder periods, and also hasn't volcanic activity decreased over time. I think the iceage now people have a rather dangerous view they are putting forward and are driven by some worrying hidden agenda.

"Theoretical models of the sun's development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth's surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and in fact that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The general consensus among scientists is that the young Earth's atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the lesser amount of solar energy reaching the planet" from -- Kasting, J.F., Ackerman, T.P. (1986). "Climatic Consequences of Very High Carbon Dioxide Levels in the Earth’s Early Atmosphere". Science 234: 1383-1385.

And fr volcanic activity see http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=06

However if you hold with Gaia hypothosis then maybe the earth will restabalise. But the cost may be a world with out human dominance!

[SnowBear]

Surely if undersea volcanic activity had increased, we would have seen increased activity in places like Iceland, Hawaiii etc, where those volcanoes reach the surface and it would all be very well documented by USGS, who now have more capacity to monitor these things than even 20 years ago via satelite etc.

A reasonable increase in onland volcanoes would have occured as well due to hotspots etc spanning ocean and land in some areas etc.

What true evidence do we have for this.....also with what comparison of data...how far back. Its only very recently we have been able to reach the places where this activity is occuring so how can anyone say there is an increase.

In my view, from remembering Mount St Helens, Pinatubo, Icelandic eruptions, Montserrat....lately volcanic activity events have been rather dull in comparison for the last 10 years.

An increased population, more reports, more people monitoring, access to previously inaccessible deep sea floors = skewed appearance of an increase in activity.

[Guest Mike W]

What do you man by the iceagenow people, it's only run by one person Robert Felix and it's not exactly a lavish site anyway, unlike Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth site and other pro warming sites. The most lavish site I have seen by sceptics is Junkscience and that run by two people. Felix certainly doesn't get the high amount of funds that the pro-AGW camp get for their sites. I'm not as sceptical as junkscience or iceagenow BTW. But it is silly to assume every sceptic site is run by esso or BP etc.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Damien

what you are talking about is the Gleissberg Minima in 2030 as a part of the Gleissberg cycle. If indeed this theory is correct then forget 2030, cooling will begin AND be apparent within the next 5-10 years. It is froecast to be a decent minima but not on scale of Maunder, Dalton or Wolf....but not far behind.

GHGs are essential on Earth to help retain heat from the sun....it will be interesting to see what develops because without doubt NO SUN NO HEAT.

BFTP

[Scribbler]

Damien

what you are talking about is the Gleissberg Minima in 2030 as a part of the Gleissberg cycle. If indeed this theory is correct then forget 2030, cooling will begin AND be apparent within the next 5-10 years. It is froecast to be a decent minima but not on scale of Maunder, Dalton or Wolf....but not far behind.

GHGs are essential on Earth to help retain heat from the sun....it will be interesting to see what develops because without doubt NO SUN NO HEAT.

BFTP

In the meantime we're in for a major sunspot Maximum in 2012 (if you believe NASA, etc) which will (according to various bodies) mean a much more active sun and more warming effects.

We'll need a Minima in between to allow the earth to cool before the next Maxima.

What do you man by the iceagenow people, it's only run by one person Robert Felix and it's not exactly a lavish site anyway, unlike Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth site and other pro warming sites. The most lavish site I have seen by sceptics is Junkscience and that run by two people. Felix certainly doesn't get the high amount of funds that the pro-AGW camp get for their sites. I'm not as sceptical as junkscience or iceagenow BTW. But it is silly to assume every sceptic site is run by esso or BP etc.

Agreed!

The guy does put a lot of (carefully selected) news items together but as you imply, it's only one man's viewpoint of the world and the future.

[Methuselah]

What do you man by the iceagenow people, it's only run by one person Robert Felix and it's not exactly a lavish site anyway, unlike Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth site and other pro warming sites. The most lavish site I have seen by sceptics is Junkscience and that run by two people. Felix certainly doesn't get the high amount of funds that the pro-AGW camp get for their sites. I'm not as sceptical as junkscience or iceagenow BTW. But it is silly to assume every sceptic site is run by esso or BP etc.

Yes Mike, but it doesn't require that many funds to enable one to come-by a modicum of scientific awareness...Making daft and fallacious claims only obfuscates, and attracts attention; it doesn't further debate?

It could be this, it could be that; it could be all manner of things. So long as AGW (to where the evidence points?) can be safely discounted a priori, that is?

[Dawlish]

Today we are going through a very warm period with mild winters warms summers and year on year of above average tempetures. This has lead many to belive that this is caused by man made Glabal warming and that the Future in the U.K will be warm. But a report in iceagenow suggest that that the warming is mosterly due to the sun. When the sun goes through an attive phase we are warmer and when it is quite we are cooler. In the last little iceage the sun was quiter and the warm ocean cureents were slower. the result was a period of cold. From the 16th to the 19th centures there were many bitting east or north wind winters which froze the rivers and lakes and caused deep snow to lye on the ground for many weeks in winter in central England. sometimes in the coldest of these winters the snows would lye up to a 100 days and trees died of frost. now during this time not only the gulf stream was weaker but the sun was also far quiter and this had a major effect on the climate. In this time average winter temps were about 2 degrees colder than today and the mild westerly winds were far weaker. Now the point of this message is that the sun is expected to go into another quite phase at sometime in the 2030s. If that happens and combine that with weaker warm ocean currents then we could well have another cold spell that is even colder than the last little ice age. In the 2030s the winters in the U.K could well be snowbound with deep snow and heavy drifting lasting for weeks at a time. our rivers will once again freeze. Average daily temps in this colder winters in Central England would be between 0 and 2 Celsius by day and night times would be well below freezing sometimes falling below -10. This is the average climate some winters would be far colder others less cold. but even the less cold ones not not be as warm as today. Summers two will be cooler and wetter but again hot spells will still occure. now this message is not so much about the gulf stream as we know all about that but about the sun. The sun is the main sourse of heat and small changes in that brings warm and cold spells. So when the sun goes quite we would cool and the great frosts and snows will return. now the 2030s may seem a long way but the first of these bitter wintrer may be far nearer and could occure before the end of this decade. They had happened many times in the past sometimes lasting over 3 months.

It is the "the sun is expected to" thing that really gets me.

To say that indicates a subscription to the theory of cycles in the sun's activity being predictable and correct. The rest of your post is based on effects from a very dubious cause; ie scaremongering and speculation. Yes of course all that could happen if the sun's output became less, but I would assert that there is absolutely no way that we could possibly predict that will happen to the sun's output in 25-35 years time, therefore your scenario of a britain "even colder than the last ice age" is, with respect, faintly ridiculous.

Paul

Edited July 8, 2006 by Dawlish

[summer blizzard]

Blast From The Past, i have not been able to find any articles that say that this will not be as severe as the Maunder Minima, could you point me to your source?

I say this because according to this chart and the link below, the minima of 2030 should be of the Maunder minimum type and not the Dalton minima type of 1810. (i.e. long lasting and therefore colder)

Time series of the unsmoothed extrema in the change of the sun's orbital rotary force dT/dt for the years 1000 – 2250. Each time when the amplitude of a negative extremum goes below a low threshold, indicated by a dashed horizontal line, a period of exceptionally weak solar activity is observed. Two consecutive negative extrema transgressing the threshold indicate grand minima like the Maunder minimum (around 1670), the Spoerer minimum (around 1490), the Wolf minimum (around 1320), and the Norman minimum (around 1010), whereas a single extremum below the threshold goes along with events of the Dalton minimum type (around 1810 and 1170) not as severe as grand minima. So the Gleissberg minima around 2030 and 2200 should be of the Maunder minimum type. As climate is closely linked to the sun's activity, conditions around 2030 and 2200 should approach those of the nadir of the Little Ice Age around 1670. As explained in the text, the IPCC's hypothesis of man-made global warming is not in the way of this forecast exclusively based on the sun's eruptional activity. Outstanding positive extrema have a similar function as to exceptionally warm periods like the Medieval Optimum and the modern warm period.

http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm

"It has been shown that there is a close relationship between deep Gleissberg minima and cold climate. So the probability is high that the outstanding Gleissberg minima around 2030 and 2201 will go along with periods of cold climate comparable to the nadir of the Little Ice Age. As to the minimum around 2030, there are additional indications that global cooling is to be expected instead of global warming. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) will show negative values up to at least 2016 (Landscheidt, 2001), and La Niñas will be more frequent and stronger than El Niños through 2018 (Landscheidt, 2000)."

"We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong. The outcome of this further long-range climate forecast solely based on solar activity may be considered to be a touchstone of the IPCC's hypothesis of man-made global warming."

[Dawlish]

Under "The Rains Came....And Came", Iceagenow says............

"Mother Earth is belching up red hot magma through the ocean floor all across the globe.

It may come as a surprise to you, but two thirds of all volcanic activity takes place under the world's seas, and currently that activity is heating the oceans to the point where they are sending huge amounts of moisture up into the atmosphere where it comes down as heavy rain in the spring, summer and fall, and snow in the winter.

As Bob Felix points out in his iceagenow.com website, it's not global warming, but ocean warming.

The non-existent global warming isn't heating the oceans as poor demented Al Gore would have us believe, but ocean heating that's warming the globe."

Ice age now is a site right on the edge of scientific reality, where one man puts forward his alternative ideas and a lot of people with a lot less science, but a willingness and a wish, to believe in alternatives, especially to GW, believe what he writes.

There isn't a scrap of evidence for underwater volcaonoes increasing in their output and, as snowbear correctly and knowledgeably points out, there would, almost certainly, have been a corresponding increase in the output of continental volcanoes which would have been well documented by the USGS and would have everyone in the world rightly worried. We're not. It very, very probably ain't happening.

Bob Felix has latched onto something which is unprovable at present (underwater volcanoes are not well monitored, so therefore it could be happening) to try to explain the difference between more linear ocean heating and much less linear land heating. I think the answer lies in differences in specific heat capacity myself, but I can't be bothered to set up a website to expound my completely theoretical and unproven viewpoint.

Again, it is real pinch of reality territory. There is nothing to say that underwater volcanoes are certainly not responsible for ocean warming and therefore Global Warming; but weigh up the possibilities of it being correct before telling us of the consequences of it being correct, is what I'd say to Bob Felix - and others on the edge of scientific reality.

Paul

Edited July 8, 2006 by Dawlish

[West is Best]

Today we are going through ... [edit blah blah blah]

Do you think posting the same thing every week makes it any more valuable, and any more interesting to read?

Your record is stuck Daniel. We all heard it the first time. It's exceedingly tedious to keep hearing it week in week out, month in month out, year in year out.

Edited July 8, 2006 by West is Best

[Methuselah]

What's Hume's dictum again: that the more probable explanation should be thoroughly explored before contemplation of the improbable?

[summer blizzard]

Dawlish, a link has been found between the velocity of sunspots moving away from the equator and the strength of solar maxima, while i can not find the link it was on the NASA website and because the velocity of the sunspot movement is now near zero, NASA is expecting sunspot levels during the solar maxima of 2022 to be consistant with those of the Maunder minima, which is another reason why i support the Gliessburg minima theory.

[Dawlish]

Dawlish, a link has been found between the velocity of sunspots moving away from the equator and the strength of solar maxima, while i can not find the link it was on the NASA website and because the velocity of the sunspot movement is now near zero, NASA is expecting sunspot levels during the solar maxima of 2022 to be consistant with those of the Maunder minima, which is another reason why i support the Gliessburg minima theory.

It was easy to find. Just type "NASA sunspot activity" into Google. Poor old NASA lost funding in October 2005 and the site has died. It is a shame. I hate it when good scientific recording and research is stifled by a lack of funding. I'll bet the funding has been vired into attention-grabbing science, like the present Space Shuttle mission.

Sunspot activity and solar activity (linked, but not entirely dependent) are certainly a factor that influences climate; Piers Corbyn would argue that it is a major one, I know, but I remain sceptical about the predictability of weather and world climate, using solar activity alone.

It is interesting that in 2005, a low, in the present "11" year sunspot cycle (the 11 is in inverted commas as this cycle is an average of about 11 years and not an actual 11 year cycle), the world was at its warmest for 120 years. I would have expected world temperatures to have cooled, at least a little, as a result of the lack of sunspot activity a la Maunder minimum. It hasn't happened and it increases my scepticism that the Gliessberg Minimum may be no more than a statistical aberration -and the Maunder Minimum a result od poor 17th Century observation; the link between sunspot activity and climate may not ba as causal as you imagine.

Paul

Edited July 8, 2006 by Dawlish

[Methuselah]

Indeed Paul. It could be no-more than a statistical correlation?

[kold weather]

Right wel lI won't post much in this thread because I'll just be gonig over old ground again but when i saw this topic in here I must admit I had a funny feeling I knew who it would be who has poste dit, and alas, suprise suprise I'm right!!!

Dawlish, thats what makes it even more intresting, the fact that 2005, a nuetral year in term sof El nino and stuff like that yet still was one of the warmrest years eve. mind you you've got to remember usally with any mins and maxes in terms of solar actvities there is usually a certain amount of lag and while still stupidly warm this year so far overall has been cooler then recent years, though still above average overall and don't blame La Nina because it was hardly a blip conisdering how weak it was, that strong Positive an9omaly over Newfoundland is way stronger then La Nina was!

Still as I've said ple nt yof times before, once we get a stromng El nino I'm willing to bet we'll have year that won't just be the warmest globally but also the warmest in the UK, over 11C in terms of the CET.

[Dawlish]

Indeed Paul. It could be no-more than a statistical correlation?

It is very easy to find articles which either question longer-term sunspot cycles, or question whether these cycles really affect our climate, to the Extent that Maunder, or Gliessberg imply. Here's 4. I could easily find more:

http://verplant.org/history-geophysics/Sun/Sun.htm

http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/proposals/p11_proposal.pdf (which questions and points to further reseach needed in the field)

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-04zzd.html (Solar forcing of climate change may be less than previously thought)

http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm A Pro-Solar activity/climate forcing site - the provenence of the site will explain why, but it contains a good graph - why is it that a prolonged minimum in solar output coincided with continuing warmth in the early 19th Century?

I just don't see this as anything like cut and dried and phrases like Summer's; "NASA is expecting sunspot levels during the solar maxima of 2022 to be consistant with those of the Maunder minima", have 2 obvious weaknesses:

1. To predict solar activity, on the basis of the cyclical evidence so far, holds no certainties;

2. To link the Maunder minimum with decreased sunspot activity and solar output may, as you say Pete, simply be a statistical and not a causal excercise.

Interesting and I would never discount the possibility of a closer link between sunspot activity and climate change, than I feel there is evidence for at present, but I would not stake my mortgage on 2030 being another little ice age.

Paul

Edited July 8, 2006 by Dawlish

[Methuselah]

It is, as you say Paul, interesting...But the one thing that bothers me most about presumed links between the weather and sunspot activity (at least over the 22.5 yr[?] cycle), is that the weather just doesn't seem to follow that cycle?? Yes, we had a hot summer in both 1989 and 1990, at the height of sunspot activity - but we also had one in 1995, around its minimum!

I suspect that, as with volcanoes, there is a huge amount of data-skewing due to a previous paucity of observation...Did the Universe really get bigger with the advent of Heliocentrism or the Hubble telescope - or can we just see more of it, and in a different light (Pardon the pun! )?